NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 19, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) Good luck with that fleet average. Currently, its about 24 MPG. That leaves about 5 years of engineering for a 50% increase. 25 right now, 35 in 7 years is 40% in those years. Definitely a hard thing to accomplish, but entirely possible. The downfall of this, of course, is that the cost of manufacturing cars (and price to the consumers) will increase. But so will the price of gas, which will be offset by this legislation. So, you can either pay less for the cars and more for the gas, or vice versa. I'd rather that same money go to high tech work and engineers here, then to the Middle East as oil money.

Veto override attempt fails. Needed 14 of 19, got 11. The tax stays. So much for the will of the people.

Obama officially announced the administration's two-pronged plan for greener automobiles. Long story short... 35.5 mpg fleet average by 2016, and a 30% reduction in emissions. Linky.

QUOTE (WSoxMatt @ May 19, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) Its Lillibridge Good. The paranoid Sox fan in me just had this fear they'd find a reason to keep Lillibridge around.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ May 19, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) pods has been doing okay out there, i have to admit. but isn't it just a matter of time until he's injured? Does weezy have any options left? He's been awful on defense (as expected), and his hitting isn't going to be sustainable because he's gotten some crazy lucky stuff. He does still have some good speed though.

And who goes down to Charlotte? We all assume its Lillibridge, and I hope it is, but what if its Nix?

I hadn't paid a lot of attention to this guy previously, especially at 26 in AAA. But I have to say, looking more closely, I like what I see. Not only are his core results good, but all the peripherals look consistently good as well, even getting better as time goes on. He strikes out a lot of guys, walks few, doesn't give up home runs, gets ground balls at a good rate... he has a fastball around 93 and a good slider, and a change up that has apparently improved. I hope if we bring up another starter this year for any reason, its this guy.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 18, 2009 -> 04:13 PM) And I'm saying Carlos Torres is no different than those other players. They are what they are and they might get a chance somewhere but if you plan on winning it won't be in Chicago. They might find a home with the Pirates as a 5th starter for a few seasons just logging innings and than eventually develop into a decent relief piece but they aren't anything more and if thats what we have to get excited about than I throw up at that thought. Link is the only thing remotely passable down in AAA, maybe Cassel if he figures his stuff out but his velocity is poor since the injury (and it wasn't good to begin with) and he doesn't have enough of the other stuff to succeed, imo. Lucy isn't bad as a potential backup catcher, again, nothing more. Ya know, I've done some digging today on Carlos Torres, and it only reinforces my belief that Torres is not at all like Whisler or some of these other guys in Charlotte. I like what I see. Solid starter, good control numbers (typically around 3 BB/9), good K rate around 1 an inning, solid ERA, gives up very few home runs, decent ground ball rates... what's not to like? He's got a 93 mph fastball with movement, a good slider and what was described a couple years ago as an "improving" change up. If we need to bring a starter up to Chicago, I want this guy up.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 19, 2009 -> 01:23 PM) That's not because you are booing... He's not booing, he's saying "boo-urns!"

This shipp is bananas. Anderson back, maybe Quentin. Temps are up, we're at home, and out most reliable starter is on the mound. There has never been a better time to get going. soooooo..... GO YOU WHITE SOX!!!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 19, 2009 -> 12:30 PM) Strikeouts are a lot more tolerable if you bring something extraordinary to the table. Thome, Dunn, they bring 40 homers and a ton of walks. Granderson brings a lot of speed, a leadoff guy, some power, muti-faceted offense and plus defense. Unless he's doing something else high above average, the strikeouts at the current pace will make him an insurance salesman. The guy putting up the same numbers with the same defense with 75 strikeouts is a lot more valuable. I agree.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxfan1986 @ May 18, 2009 -> 10:39 PM) Iowa State dropped their baseball program earlier this decade. Oh, I had no idea. I guess that explains why they had guys drafted every year until around 2002 and then just stopped. QUOTE (Heads22 @ May 18, 2009 -> 10:46 PM) I'm pretty familiar with it. http://www.lib.iastate.edu/spcl/exhibits/b...reflections.htm Mainly for NS....a history of ISU baseball. Starts with a picture of them playing baseball around where the Campanile is. Thanks Heads, I'll take a gander.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 19, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) Oh I agree about the rotation, I still think the Sox have three solid guys, two of which are young already in there rotation. The problem is of that group you listed, Infante/Upchurch are very raw, Hudson looks good and is the most advanced in terms of a starter, Harrel probably doesn't have big league starters stuff, and Carter is a bit behind Hudson, but again looks promising. Poreda has a big arm, but probably a reliever. I don't know if any project as potential front of the rotation guys and you need to really make sure you always have an influx since pitching prospects flame out at a pretty high rate. I think you need to start including Charlie Shirek in the discussion of rotation talent a few years down the line.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 19, 2009 -> 12:15 PM) I agree with him. You can't strike out close to 200 times and hit 15 homers with a low OBP and an average at best glove. Maybe if he starts going to RF he will cut down his K rate, but how many guys strike out as much as he does but don't also get on base a lot? Not too many. Although I have never been a fan of his, I personally think he is Ron Kittle Jr. at the plate, it is too early to write him off now. I wish they would let Betemit, even with a bad glove play against some RHP and let Fields play when his chances of success are higher. I think eventually he won't be considered a main piece in the White Sox core, but set him up a little better for success and maybe something clicks. When he walks up to the plate and sees 2 homers on the scoreboard under his name, its not doing his game any good. I'm sure he thought he would be a 30-40 homer guy. I agree with that. I disagree with what he said, which is not what you are saying here.

#5 is sort of missing the point, because its accurate - its called a three pedal terpischore (sp?). Right foot on the gas, left heel on the brake, left toe on the clutch.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 19, 2009 -> 10:46 AM) We could afford him to be a 10-12 homer guy on the 2000, 2005 or 2006 teams. Not this year, especially if Quentin continues to struggle and/or is injured. Not on a team last in the AL in runs produced and one of the three worst teams in the majors in terms of runs scored and runs allowed. Hitting the ball to the right side, when it's dictated....that's great. Konerko has done it consistently and some are complaining about his lack of power, but I'd rather see Konerko's approach than Carlos'. The fact of the matter is that you can't strike out at his rate unless you're putting up 30-40 homers per year OR playing great defense. Josh is doing neither. It's pretty clear he has a hitch in his swing (just watch all of his hand movement on the replays, especially from the side) and he's not staying on the ball with his eyes until the point of contact, like Nix did with that low curveball yesterday. He's, as Harrelson says, a 54-55 foot hitter who's really gotten "in between," but he lacks Alexei's hand speed...which is why there is more hope for Ramirez to pull out of it than Lillibridge, Fields or Anderson in the long run. The bolded really makes no sense. So, you can K a lot, if you hit homers, or play defense, but not if you have a high average or OBP? Simply put, saying he can't be successful going middle and right is ridiculous. If that is what he needs to do to improve his hitting, then add power as time goes on, that is what he should do.

Off the flow... I got a flat tire while riding the bike to work this morning (I ride pretty much every day in spring-fall). Broke my tire tool trying to change the tire, ended up doing a bus-walk thing to get downtown, big pain in the ass, etc. So then I try to find the nearest bike shop downtown. There is not a bike shop in downtown Chicago. There is one at like 1200 S. Michigan, another one way out at like 900 S Des Plaines by the Dan Ryan, and some in Streeterville - but not a single one in the loop or even near the loop. Downtown is the place more bikes ride to during the day than anywhere else. How in the hell is there no bike shop down here?

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ May 19, 2009 -> 09:53 AM) that fact is only random to you Its also not truly correct - Oxygen is only about 18% of the air we breathe. The largest part is nitrogen. Also, if you use a UV light, scorpions will glow blue in the dark.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 19, 2009 -> 07:54 AM) I can't believe this argument's gone on for 7 pages and kept being more than what it is. It's a stupid, politically tone deaf thing to do that's really unhelpful when you're trying to avoid the perception that you're engaged in some kind of religious war or clash of civilizations. If you want to dismiss the strategic importance of that, fine, but that just tells me that you don't get it, either, and probably won't, and should do some research on Islamic militants' propaganda (I'd prefer if my government leaders didn't throw fastballs down the fat part of the plate, which the previous administration did routinely for a few years before they realized it). It's nothing more and nothing less than that. Thank you. No one here was bashing religion of faith, at all.

QUOTE (SI1020 @ May 18, 2009 -> 08:31 PM) I was afraid the remark about Bush would get miscontrued. I have no great love for him or his administration. As for the other part I was alive and in Chicago in the 60s and 70s. It was declining. Where I disagree is this feeling that gentrification has been the pathway to a better city. It has remade a few areas to the detriment of the middle and working classes. I'll agree that the lakefront, the museums and cultural institutions, what I call showcase Chicago is in some ways better than ever. As for the entire city, hell no. Do a checklist of all 77 community areas and the smaller individual neighborhoods within. Go back one, two and three generations and compare to today. Do the same with the public schools. What you now have is an upper crust, the urban poor and very little in the middle. Sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree about Daley and the city. Do you work for the city? No I definitely do not work for the city. But there is no question in my mind that it has improved dramatically for the great majority of its population (though not all) in the past few decades. No doubt at all. Heck, go for a walk. There are so many neighborhoods now that were anywhere from crappy to war zone 25 years ago, that are vibrant and relatively safe now. All over the place there are these neighborhoods. Now, try to tell me about some neighborhoods that have declined - there are a few I am sure, but very small in number compared to the flipside.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ May 19, 2009 -> 09:44 AM) Since Walk is on the hot seat you can actually do whatever you want. If a potential replacement lies within the system, then OF COURSE he needs to be discussed. OF COURSE is the key phrase here. ABSOLUTELY fills in as well. The OP is right on the money 100% in opening this dialouge, 100% dead nuts correct. Harold can't be considered because he was too good of a hitter? Someone with almost 3000 hits doesn't suck enough to teach hitting? GMAFB that he can't be discussed. Discussing Harold as an option is certainly worthwhile. But the idea that a hitter's numbers in his career are the dictator of how well he will coach is not "100% dead nuts correct", whatever the heck that means. Its actually quite false, as shown by history. Just because someone is good at something, that is NOT the same as being good at teaching it. In non-sports terms, its like taking a guy who is really good at coding, and having him run a department of software developers. Might work, might not, but whether or not it works is dependent on a different set of skills. Harold might work. But not because he put up better numbers than Walker, especially since Harold had a less than ideal approach at the plate for teaching someone anyway. And by the way, Walker's career ended earlier than it should have due in part to a broken arm and an anuerysm that may or may not have repeated itself and put his life in danger.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 19, 2009 -> 12:38 AM) Josh Fields can't really be defined as a bust until we put him back down at the 6-7-8 spot in the batting order and let him go back to what he was doing in 2007 instead of trying to have a stance like Carlos Quentin or driving the ball to RF like a #2/contact hitter. If he doesn't put up 15 homers and strikes out 150+ times, that's when you can have the conversation again. He could be a similar player to Michael Cuddyer (or Crede, or Rowand), who took a good 2-3 years to really establish himself as a regular at the major league level. His defense has been a little better than many suspected, and his OBP is actually better than Getz...he just needs to go back to what worked for him in spring training and 2007. Easier said than done. Actually, having him go up the middle and to RF is something he SHOULD be doing. Combine that with a less time-consuming bat load and he'll then be able to catch up to heat better. When he was doing this early in the season, it worked for a bit.

THe argument is indeed flawed, and who the heck calls Harold Baines "Hal"? Actually, maybe HAL is the answer. Or maybe not... Fields: HAL, I need some hitting advice. HAL: Yes Josh, I can see that. Fields: can you tell me how I can catch up to 94 mph inside heat without changing my swing? HAL: I'm sorry Josh, I can't do that.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:45 PM) What behavior have you seen from Rumsfeld that makes you believe he is "off his rocker"? I'll again say that you should read some of the books detailing what went on in the Bush Administration. I bring up the Woodward books because he has a history of being well respected for his reporting, and was accepted with open arms by that administration at first (until the first couple books were published). Rumsfeld was borderline delusional.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 18, 2009 -> 05:25 PM) Interesting. Never got that impression from him, but in this case I'll defer. He's one of the wave of New World Order types, who at one time in the 80's labeled themselves realists, but as time went on and 9/11 happened, suddenly went off their rocker and wanted a holy war. Cheney is another one, though Cheney's transformation was even more extreme.